Hacker News Reader

Comment by ThrowawayTestr | Hacker News Reader

You truly believe this change is because of Israel?

This change? IMHO Yes.

It was coming anyway, and it could have been any event that triggered it. The right event at the right time?

But as others here mention, the powers that be are unhappy that the population isn't siding with their position. The government is fine with dissent against Russia because they are "the enemy" in the narrative.

Not to say there hasn’t been creeping authoritarianism, growing mass surveillance, etc. for the last few decades, but it has seemed that this one issue has stood out as utterly unique, especially in the UK in that there was basically bipartisan accord from those in power across all the mainstream political views, and the only “allowed” position from them was uncritical support for that country’s Government and their military actions.

At the same time, there seemed to be a much larger group of people in the normal population who disagreed with those in power than most other issues (when at least some representatives in a major party might roughly align with the people)

The uk has specifically banned support for Palestine Action so it's a reasonable conclusion

Didn't that group attack an RAF base?

And violently sledgehammered a female police officer breaking her spine.

and that's terrorism, is it?

i just thought it was GBH, but i'll update my definition if you can cite your sources...

Given that the Palestine Action is a proscribed terrorist organisation under the Terrorism Act, and its co-founder said just one day after the Oct 7 massacre: “When we hear the resistance, the Al-Aqsa flood [Hamas' name for the massacre] we must turn that flood into a tsunami of the whole world.”

Yes.

Attack is a strong word for throwing a can of paint.

After the 2024 riots there were mass arrests and prosecution, but only talk about reviewing groups as to whether they should be proscribed.

Why does a member throwing a can of paint get you classed as a terrorist organisation, while organising riots that involve throwing molotov's and causing serious injury not?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_Kingdom_riots

Their initial statement the day of (or after) the action at the RAF base was something like:

  "disabled aircraft using paint and crowbars"

Which even if they didn't use crowbars, then would seem to require the turbines be inspected for alignment and physical damage.

> disabled aircraft using paint and crowbars

Is that "terror"?

Besides, why not prosecute them for their actions, why proscribe the organisation as a terrorist one, while at the same time ignoring groups who commit much more violent offenses (such as the one given) and concentrate on prosecuting "personal responsibility"?

Because if you stir up enough hate some will act on it. You can't hope to control stuff like this by personal responsibility.

I don't know what you are trying to say here.

Is that for or against the governments hypocritical position?

> why proscribe the organisation as a terrorist one, while at the same time ignoring groups who commit much more violent offenses

You seem to completely ignore this.

Did it happen when people protested Russian invasion? No

Did it happen when people protested China for the treatment of Uyghurs? No

Did it happen when people speak up (no protests, yet) about UAE involvement in Sudan? No

I made my own conclusions based on these and other similar data points.

Its almost 2026 and you still believe the uyghur propaganda...?

TBF despite the fact you're right, it's still beside the point. Some protests are seen as more wholesome than others.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com